A Better Grammar for Political Debates |
Pragmatism is an alternative to ideology and an antidote to certainty.
Ideology imposes constraints on thought and problem-solving. Pragmatism continues asking questions.
The language of pragmatism is conditional, not absolute.
In previous posts, I have discussed principles of constructive dialogue and reasoned argument. If we are willing, first, to listen to another person’s concerns, then, to consider the most reasonable form of her opinion (intellectual charity) and to acknowledge the inevitable limitations of our own (intellectual humility), we have taken several steps away from ideology and move toward pragmatism. Our discussion will now more often be "pragmatic."
I am using the word pragmatism in a specific sense. I am not speaking about being pragmatic as a political tactic; deciding what issues should be given priority and what battles to choose, or a willingness to compromise, or a recognition that there are limits to what can be accomplished at any time. I am writing now about pragmatism in a meaning closer to its philosophical origin in the writings of William James—that truth is not found in abstract principles or beliefs, but in effects that can be observed. Pragmatism is about what works and what doesn't.
Pragmatism is anti-ideological and an antidote to certainty. The language of pragmatism is conditional, not absolute. Pragmatism asks about specific conditions. To change an ideological statement—a statement of conviction or belief—into a pragmatic question, we ask "in what cases, under what conditions, to what extent."
Pragmatic debates are very different from ideological debates. Ideology imposes constraints on thought and problem-solving. Ideology limits the problems we see, the stories we listen to, and the solutions we are willing to consider. Pragmatism removes these constraints. Pragmatism continues asking questions. Pragmatism, James wrote, is open-minded.
Pragmatism is a way of thinking that attempts to understand problems—with as little bias and as few preconceptions as possible. Pragmatism recognizes that most problems have multiple causes and that most proposed solutions have multiple effects. Ideology offers quick and simple answers to complex problems. Pragmatism requires research and study, a commitment to consider all the facts, a willingness to admit mistakes, and to change our minds. Ideology is easy; pragmatism is hard.
Pragmatic questions are "how" questions
“How” questions attempt to identify pathways (and impediments) to solutions. “How” questions are empirical, scientific questions: “What will happen if, under these circumstances, we do this?” “What will be the short-term and long-term effects of this policy?” "Have we considered all the relevant facts and all the possible consequences of this course of action?"[1] Pragmatism evaluates pros and cons.
When we acknowledge the limits of our ideology, it is no longer ideology. We will still have guiding principles, sympathies, priorities, and concerns. However, priorities are not the same as ideologies. They may be passionate and urgent priorities, but, unlike ideologies, priorities are not absolute. Pragmatism prefers a grammar of "both-and" instead of "either-or." We are not asking whether or not, but when, how, or how much.
Pragmatism is also intrinsically nonpartisan. The solution to one problem may be a conservative solution; the solution to another problem may be a liberal solution. If it works, it doesn't matter whether the idea came from the right or the left. In debating legislation, politicians may, at times, engage in pragmatic discussions to some degree. But these discussions are rarely fully pragmatic; they are still constrained by partisanship and ideology. If the solution to any problem is pre-determined to be either a conservative or liberal solution, thought has been constrained.
Pragmatism also reduces our tendency toward personal attacks; our disagreement is about how to solve a problem, not who you are. The farther toward either end of the ideological spectrum we move, the farther we move away from pragmatism.
I am not advocating humility and pragmatism as substitutes for ambitious policies and inspiring ideals. Especially in our current moment, we need political leaders who articulate a vision of a better society that helps bring us closer together. Many of our most urgent domestic and international problems, especially the struggles of American children and families, will require ambitious and pragmatic solutions.
James, W. (1899/2000). Pragmatism and Other Writings. Penguin Classica.